May 4-6, 2008
May 04 12:44 The Disconnect May 04 23:57 I'll Take Issue With That May 05 01:58 Franken Hurt By Tax Fiasco May 05 03:04 This 'Surprise' Was Expected May 05 10:13 Another Anti-Michele Hit Piece May 06 09:39 Ellison Doesn't Heart Photo ID's for Voters May 06 11:03 Hillary's Campaign Ends Today
The Disconnect
Salena Zito has a must read post on her Primary Colors blog that talks about the disconnect between superdelegates and voters. It's a stinging rebuke of the Democrats' nominating process, too.
Joe Andrew, a Democratic National Committee chair for five minutes, lives and operates out of Washington, D.C. But when it comes to giving news conferences about the presidential campaign, his podium is in Indianapolis. That is where Andrew went from Beltway boy to Hoosier to make his "big" announcement on changing sides from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.The reality is that elitist Democratic Washingtonians love being in the power chair. They love to think that their's is the final opinion, that their's is the opinion that matters most.
And the whole word gasped.
Well, not really the whole world. In all honesty, the collective gasp was heard from within the Beltway, that patch of geography where the chattering elite class of politicos live, breathe and eat.
But drive 15 minutes in any direction outside of the Beltway, and no one knows who Joe Andrew is or why his deflection should affect their vote.
Here is the problem that the media seems to ignore in this race for the Democrats: While there is plenty of headlines and pontifications about superdelegates moving their support to Obama, there is a curious dismissal of Clinton's string of strong wins with the John Deere voters.
As blogs become the voice of Mainstreet America, the superdelegates' opinions matter less and less. That's where the disconnect is most clearly seen. At the center of this is Howard Dean, the man who fancies himself as an outsider. In reality, he, like Markos Moulitsas, is a Washington insider with a brash voice pretending to speak for the people.
Salena does the nation a great service by calling voters in the Heartland John Deere voters. They're trying to tell people who their preference is for the Democratic nomination. The superdelegates aren't listening. Here's one of Salena's most stinging rebukes:
While putting nearly 2,000 miles in the Hoosier State in the past week, the reflections and opinions of the voters is not that different than what I saw in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And those opinions are that superdelegates to them are people who make their minds up based on their experiences and geography, i.e. Washington D.C.There's a reason why Sen. Obama is in deeper trouble than DC insiders think. It's because he hasn't connected with John Deere voters. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that Hillary Clinton really connects with them, either. It's just that she's connecting with them better compared with how Obama is right now.
The voters make their opinions and decisions on their experiences in their geography, i.e. Middle America.
Yet the story remains that Clinton cannot mathematically win. Well since Barack Obama cannot win either without her dropping out, perhaps what the analysis should be is why voters continue to vote her in while Beltway news conferences tell them "no, no, no."
Neither compares with how Bill Clinton connected with how he connected with John Deere voters. That's diminished now, mostly attributable to his spending the last 16 years inside the Washington-New York media bubble. That's another post for another day.
Here's another key Salena observation that the Democrats have ignored:
There is a huge disconnect between the Joe Andrew voters and the John Deere voters in this world. No one can win in the general election without them. They are the Reagan Democrats that swing elections. The last time I checked, the voters who live in the Beltway have never swung a national election. Ever.Predictably, the best description of why Democrats are in trouble in their bid to reclaim the White House comes from a voter:
As one Hoosier voter said to me along the road, "just let us vote. Stop telling us it is over before we go to the booth."
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2008 3:26 PM
No comments.
I'll Take Issue With That
This morning's At Issue wasn't strikingly different in terms of Tom Hauser's guests. What I found striking, though, was the fact that Ember Reichgott Junge offered such a silly opinion on the new gas tax ads that the HRCC is running.
It's Ember's opinion that "the ads will backfire on Republicans." The reason? Because "Minnesotans know that the DFL isn't responsible" for the rising price of a gallon of gas. That's true as far as it goes but it misses the point. B-A-D-L-Y.
It's worth noting that that isn't the point the GOP is attempting to make. The main point that they're trying to make is that the DFL raised a multitude of taxes at a time when mainstreet Minnesotans are having difficulty making ends meet. The DFL knew that there was substantial bipartisan support for a nickel a gallon State gas tax increase.
Instead of passing a truly bipartisan bill, the DFL leadership in the House and Senate decided to pass a monster tax increase bill. Instead, they chose to pile on the tax increases. They essentially said that they weren't satisfied taking just a little bit out of our wallets. They wanted to take a bunch of money out of our wallets.
This isn't surprising since that's what Steve Murphy said over a year ago:
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."I don't think taxpayers will like that quote once they're reminded of the DFL's tax policies, which can be summed up with a single word: M-O-R-E. (That word describes their spending habits, too.)
DFL candidates will have difficulty gaining traction with a tax increase message. They're locked into that message now because that's the central item on the DFL's agenda . Let's be clear, too, that this isn't just a top-down philosophy. When I make comments on the various message boards about tax cuts, people like former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker accuse me of wanting to turn Minnesota into "a cold Mississippi." John doesn't like it when I point out that states like Georgia and Colorado have lower marginal tax rates than Minnesota while maintaining high livability ratings.
The highlight of the show for me was when Tom Hauser pointed out some of the districts that the advertisements are running in, including Sandy Wollschlager's and Julie Bunn's. I wouldn't be surprised if that advertisement is repeated in other HD's either. Among those that'll get targeted are Shelley Madore, Sandra Masin and Will Morgan, who won by 195 votes, 57 votes and 909 votes respectively. Here's a list of what I'm now calling the Thousand Club, Democrats who won with margins less than 1,000:
District 8B: Tim Faust defeated Judy Soderstrom by 731 votes.Nobody in their right mind thinks that 53A will stay in DFL hands. That's Phil Krinkie's district. Flipping 26 votes is doable. I'd submit that Phil would've won going away had he not run for the CD-6 seat that Mark Kennedy was vacating. Shelley Madore and Sandy Masin can't be sitting very comfortable, either, especially considering the fact that they barely won in a year that was absolutely toxic for Republicans.
District 12B: Al Doty defeated Greg Blaine by 582 votes.
District 17B: Jeremy Kalin defeated Pete Nelson by 204 votes.
District 23A: Terry Morrow defeated Andy Davis by 816 votes.
District 25B: David Bly defeated Ray Cox by 60 votes.
District 26B: Patti Fritz defeated Otto Luknic by 541 votes.
District 27A: Robin Brown defeated Matt Benda by 285 votes.
District 28A: Sandy Wollschlager defeated Gary Iocca by 496 votes.
District 29B: Kim Norton defeated Rich Decker by 99 votes.
District 30A: Tina Liebling defeated Carla Nelson by 770 votes.
District 30B: Andy Welti defeated Bill Kuisle by 706 votes.
District 31B: Ken Tschumper defeated Gregory M. Davids by 52 votes.
District 37A: Shelley J. Madore defeated Lloyd Cybart by 195 votes.
District 38A: Sandra A. Masin defeated Tim Wilkin by 57 votes.
District 40A: Will Morgan defeated Duke Powell by 909 votes.
District 53A: Paul Gardner defeated Phil Krinkie by 51 votes.
District 56A: Julie Bunn defeated Mike Charron by 244 votes.
District 56B: Marsha Swails defeated Karen Klinzing by 448 votes.
I'd further note that I'd be very surprised if the DFL isn't playing defense this election. I'm not predicting Republicans reclaiming their majority, though I'm not ruling it out either. I simply don't know enough about the candidates that were recruited for this cycle.
One thing I'm confident about, though, is that voting for most of the DFL's tax increases wonn't win any popularity contests these days. I recall King's post about David Winston polling the tax issue. Here's what he said at the time:
Pollster David Winston, who's been testing the tax issue for Republicans, agrees with that assessment. When Mr. Winston asked a national sample of registered voters last month, "Do you believe or not believe this statement: Given the cost of living these days, now is not the time to raise taxes," 65% believe now isn't the time to raise taxes, while only 31% believe it is.King posted this on October 5, 2007, which isn't exactly a recent poll. That said, I haven't seen anything recently that suggests tax increases are more appealing now than they were then. If anything, I'd bet that tax increases are less popular now than they were then. It'll be difficult for freshmen Democrats to say that they're really moderates when their voting records are filled with votes for some of the biggest tax increases in state history.
They got to play that card once. Now that it's been played, what can they say to defend themselves?
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2008 11:57 PM
No comments.
Franken Hurt By Tax Fiasco
According to this article , there isn't room for doubt that Al Franken's tax fiasco is hurting him, at least for the general election. Here's the first question in the KSTP-SurveyUSA poll on Franken:
Al Franken the DFL candidate for U.S. Senate said he will pay about $70,000 in back income taxes to 17 states for incorrectly filing his tax returns over a five-year period. He also paid a fine to the state of New York for not paying for workers compensation insurance for workers he employed there. Knowing this, would you be more likely to vote for Al Franken for U.S. Senate? Less likely? Or would it not make a difference?Here's how people responded:
59% said they were less likely to vote for Franken.
7% said that they were more likely to vote for Franken.
31% said it wouldn't make a difference.
That's only part of Franken's problems. Here's the first question in another KSTP-SurveyUSA poll:
Minnesota will elect a United States Senator in November 2008. If the election for United States Senator were today, and the only two candidates on the ballot were Republican Norm Coleman and DFL candidate Al Franken, who would you vote for?Here's the results:
52% would vote for Sen. ColemanBeing in the low 40's isn't good news for Franken. What's worse is that Sen. Coleman is getting a majority of women voters. Democrats can't win if they can't win a majority of the women vote. the worst news for Franken is that 99% of Coleman's GOP base supports him while only 67% of Franken's DFL base support him:
42% would vote for Franken
But since the last poll, Coleman has solidified his base with 99 percent of Republicans saying they support him. That's up seven points.The only good news in this poll for Franken heading into the DFL State Convention is that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is in worse shape:
Franken has support from 67 percent of Democrats, which is down eight points.
What if the only two candidates on the ballot for United States Senator were Republican Norm Coleman and DFL candidate Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer?This has to be unsettling news for State DFL Chairman Brian Melendez. Had the DFL played their cards right, they could've consolidated their grip in St. Paul and in DC. Instead, they're forced to defend Franken, their imminent pick to challenge Sen. Coleman. They're facing the daunting challenge of telling voters that they're done with their tax increasing ways, too. With the Tax Bill soon to be vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty, it'll be difficult to imagine the DFL giving up on increasing those taxes.
Sen. Coleman 55%
Pallmeyer 36%
You'd have a better chance of selling fur coats at a PETA convention than selling tax increases to informed Minnesotans right now.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008 1:58 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-May-08 09:14 AM
We had better hope that Franken can still wrangle the nomination in June. If not, then there is absolutely no reason to vote for Norm Coleman in the fall. Coleman himself, and his campaign, have made that perfectly clear.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-May-08 09:21 AM
I totally disagree with that. Norm's voted to keep taxes low, confirm stricvt constructionist judges like John Roberts & Samuel Alito, proposed to end the practice of sanctuary cities. Norm's also voted for spending the money so we could stabilize Iraq.
I understand that we don't always agree with Norm but he's with us on the most important issues of the day.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 06-May-08 12:43 AM
Gary I made this comment recently. You realize that Norm Coleman and Kennedy basically had the same positions. Kennedy got killed by something like 15%. Norm has a 10% lead. I think it's skill that he has changed basically 25% of the electorate in an environment that wasn't suppose to be good for Republicans.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
This 'Surprise' Was Expected
According to the NY Post , the Star Tribune in in deep financial trouble. While that's shocking news to the average citizen, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to the decline of newspapers. Here's what the NY Post is reporting:
May 4, 2008 -- The Minneapolis Star Tribune, reeling under a heavy debt load and plummeting advertising sales, is on the brink of bankruptcy, The Post has learned.This isn't surprising. It's what happens when you insult your customers. That's what Nick Coleman does everytime the Strib publishes one of his hyper-partisans columns. Minnesota's center-right blogging community has known a long time that Nick Coleman has publicly insulted anyone that differs in opinion with Mr. Coleman.
One of the nation's top dailies, "The Strib," as it is known to readers in the Twin Cities, recently hired the Wall Street powerhouse Blackstone Group to restructure its balance sheet after failing to meet its debt obligations, according to people familiar with the company.
The broadsheet is unlikely to shutter its doors, but its creditors, including the banking giant Credit Suisse Group, figure to eventually end up controlling the paper. Down the road, the creditor group could then sell it after dramatically cutting costs.
That used to work when the Strib was THE GAME IN TOWN and before those uppity conservatives actually asked that their voices be heard. It doesn't work now thanks to talented bloggers who offer a very viable product.
Bloggers like Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker from Powerline and Ed Morrissey of HotAir have long established their journalistic credentials, breaking major stories. Add Michael Brodkorb to that list now, especially after hsi chasing Matt Entenza out of the AG race in the summer of 2006. More recently, Michael's exposed Al Franken for being a liar and a tax cheat.
Other high quality bloggers are also gaining recognition, though they aren't nationally recognized like Powerline yet.
During the 2006 election cycle, the job of vetting Keith Ellison fell on the shoulders of Scott Johnson, Michael Brodkorb and several MOBsters, myself included. The Strib wouldn't say a disparaging word about Keith Ellison, though they found time to run an op-ed by CAIR's Executive Director Nihad Awad and CAIR's board chairman Parvez Ahmed titled "Reject the Political Muslim-Bashing Smears." Here's the accusations Awad and Ahmed made in their op-ed:
There has been much sound and fury in certain circles about the American Muslim community's support for Keith Ellison and his campaign to represent Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District. A handful of right-wing bloggers, agenda-driven commentators and political operatives have used scurrilous smear tactics in an attempt to derail his campaign and to marginalize American Muslim voters. These smears and distortions send an un-American message of intolerance and bigotry.The Strib didn't bother with an opposing view of Ellison, most likely because he was their pet project that year.
To be fair, reporter Mark Brunswick and columnist Katherine Kersten have earned the praise they've received. They're truly topnotch journalists. Unfortunately, the Strib hasn't learned that they need alot more Mark Brunswicks and Katherine Kerstens and alot fewer Nick Colemans and Lori Sturdevants.
Ms. Sturdevant's most recent embarassment came when she complained that Al Franken hadn't been properly vetted in a 'Pigseye Podcast", one of my favorite features at the Strib. There was a time when journalists like Lori Sturdevant vetted candidates because they thought it was part of their job description. Those days are clearly in the past.
Until the Strib gets serious about pursuing the truth no matter where it takes them and they get serious about researching things before it publishes high profile articles, the Strib will continue its decline.
The biggest shame is that it doesn't need to follow that path to extinction. It'll take time to rebuild the Strib because their credibility is almost nonexistant. Let's hope their next editor takes credibility more seriously than his/her predecessors have.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008 3:04 AM
Comment 1 by Bedford at 05-May-08 09:57 AM
Does anyone else think that the real reason that newspapers are failing is that advertisers have found cheaper ways to advertise, or that the internet and 24 hour cable news outlets have bled away readers to free media? Or that increased TV watching has made us a country that reads less? Or that consolidation and decreasing reporting budgets has reduced the quality and breadth of coverage?
Rather than make some tenuous argument about a political bias, why not speak to realities that you clearly understand (since you write on a political blog)? I'm sure that some right-leaning papers have failed as well, and I would have to see a mountain of evidence to prove to me that political bias as the reason for the papers demise (thought I might want it to be). And I'm not sure anyone really cares enough about Nick Coleman to be insulted - it seems like Lori Sturdevant is the columnist du jour, and no one with half a brain could miss her far right views.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-May-08 10:19 AM
Lori Sturdevant is the columnist du jour, and no one with half a brain could miss her far right views.
Lori Surdevant has "far right views"? Who knew? Most people think that she's the DFL's plant at the Strib.
You make a couple valid points though. I can't argue that more people watch TV than read books, though there's alot of people reading online newspapers. If I were running a newspaper, though, I'd try & roll with the punches & establish an online presence. That's what businessmen are supposed to do.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 05-May-08 03:43 PM
As a former Star and Tribune reader I think the problems are:
One, they don't want to place just straight news reporting. A great example since you were citing the fifth district race in 2006 was that the Republicans endorsed their candidate the same day along with a bunch of other congressional candidates. Ellison was mentioned on page one with no mention of the Republican candidate. On the B1 story there was no mention of the Republican candidate. You had to go inside the Ellison piece to find out the endorsement. Oh it was the only story on an endorsement that was inside another story every other candidate had a seperate story.
Furthermore this was done the same day as Michelle Bachman was endorsed. So moderate agenda like Ellison is not drilling for oil in ANWAR while Bachman was extreme for that. Ellison was moderate because he's pro choice, but Bachman is extreme because she's prolife.
Two, that editorial page. They made sure they thought Gore was being cheated in Florida in 2000, but never published anybody who disagreed.
I just stop my subscription even though I'm a former Star and Tribune paper carrier because I didn't want to waste my money supporting the Democrat agenda.
Just tell the news straight and you'll get a whole lot of customers back. What's wrong with that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-May-08 10:14 PM
Just tell the news straight and you'll get a whole lot of customers back. What's wrong with that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
What's wrong with that is that they couldn't prop up their favorite liberals/socialists.
Another Anti-Michele Hit Piece
It's getting old to read the trash that the left spews out about Michele Bachmann. The latest dumping is in this editorial by Pat Welter in Monday's SC Times. Here's what Welter said that I find objectionable:
He knows it's time to recommit to our ideals and find ways to get beyond what divides us. And because he knows how to build coalitions, because he is not an "either/or" politician who says "my way or the highway," Tinklenberg gets things done. And importantly, he does it in an ethical way. We need that in the 6th.Frankly, it's impossible for me to think of a former lobbyist as appealing to our higher ideals. As for Tinklenberg getting things done, that isn't difficult when you're spreading the money around. That isn't the type of leadership we need in Washington. There's already too many hogs at that trough.
I'd argue that someone that's already decided to impeach President Bush before articles of impeachment are even debated in the House Judiciary Committee and before he's even been elected isn't ethical. Doesn't Mr. Tinklenberg think that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the justice system? Shouldn't he at least know what the charges are before forming an opinion? Shouldn't he base his opinion on something resembling verifiable proof?
That isn't ethical leadership. That's unprincipled pandering for votes to win an endorsement. That isn't what we need in Washington.
What's needed is Michele Bachmann's type of principled leadership. To my recollection, Michele doesn't pander for votes. She says what she thinks. What's most impressive is that Michele has a set of unshakeable set of core beliefs, which include prosperity and freedom at the top of her list.
The differences between an anything goes politician like Mr. Tinklenberg and a principled politician like Michele are numerous and obvious. The last thing we need is another anything goes politician in Washington.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008 10:14 AM
Comment 1 by Yomi Mizuhara at 05-May-08 05:11 PM
If this is the same Pat Welter that I am thinking of, then everyone who reads her statement should vote opposite. Pat Welter, if this is the same one I'm thinking of, is the former (and ineffective) principal of North Junior High School in St. Cloud.
It's obvious that the feminist would vote for Tinkle-berry. He's the best choice for feminists. Which is precisely the reason why the normal people in District 6 should be voting for Michele Bachmann
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 07-May-08 10:24 PM
Michele Bachmann is a do-nothing grandstander. She does press conferences, but has accomplished nothing during her years in the legislature and congress. The 6th District would have been much better served if Jim Knoblach were in office. He had always been a working legislator.
Also, Michele Bachmann says different things to the mainstream media than she does to her base. Why else would she want a no-video taping rule at the 6th District convention?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 08-May-08 02:47 AM
Eva, You've hated Michele for as long as I can remember.
While I think that Jim Knoblach would've been a fantastic representative, I'm more than satisfied with Michele's performance thus far. I love the fact that she hasn't abandoned her principles. I love the fact that she's still one of the most ethical people in Congress. And I especially love that she's trying to keep taxes low.
Comment 4 by Eva Young at 30-May-08 09:52 PM
Gary, my point is that Michele Bachmann is in many ways, similar to Al Franken - though with different ideologies. A do nothing grandstander - who has no record in her years in the legislature of actually accomplishing anything. It looks like it's the same in congress.
Knoblach is a different story. Knoblach held the same social issue positions as Michele Bachmann, but he was also interested in other issues, and would have delivered for the 6th District.
Bachmann likes to claim TABOR as an accomplishment. The facts are that she was offered the opportunity to have her bill heard, and she refused - more than once.
Ellison Doesn't Heart Photo ID's for Voters
Keith Ellison's op-ed in the Strib shows how radical he is. In it, he says that the Supreme Court was wrong in upholding Indiana's law that mandates a photo ID be shown for a person to vote. In other words, Ellison is against legislation that'd prevent voter fraud. Here's what Rep. Ellison said:
Eight years after Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered another blow to the rights of American citizens by upholding the most restrictive voter law in decades. The court's recent ruling effectively bars thousands of eligible voters from the franchise.Rep. Ellison says that Indiana didn't prove that this legislation will prevent fraud. He doesn't offer any proof, though, that the "court's recent ruling effectively bars thousands of eligible voters." What proof does Ellison have that this law will disenfranchise voters?
The decision in Crawford vs. Marion County Board upholds Indiana's requirement that voters in the state of Indiana present a state-issued photo ID if they wish to cast a ballot. The court upheld a statute that it admits:
- Does not prevent the fraud it was intended to prevent.
- Is designed to prevent a type of fraud that does not exist.
- Does not prevent the fraud that is a documented problem in the state.
- Places an extra burden on the poor, minority, elderly and college voters in Indiana.
I'd further suggest that the litigants should have to prove that the legislation can't prevent voter fraud. Ellison says that the statute doesn't prevent the fraud it was intended to prevent, which refers to the possible voter fraud on absentee ballots. If that's true, then it's time to tighten that up. It shouldn't be used to argue against preventing voter fraud.
Indiana did not present any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists. There is no evidence of this type of fraud in Indiana history. Furthermore, this requirement does nothing to address the documented fraud issue Indiana has with absentee ballots, nor does it address the serious concerns of vote buying, ballot-stuffing, ballot miscounting, voter intimidation and other documented types of fraud.Legislatures pass 'reforms' all the time that don't fix the problems. If this legislation doesn't fix other problems, then it's the Indiana legislature's responsibility to pass legislation fixing other problems, too.
The Indiana law and others like it will disenfranchise mostly young, low-income and elderly voters who disproportionately do not have or need photo IDs, equating to thousands of lost votes. According to a June 2005 University of Wisconsin study, an estimated 23 percent of people aged 65 and over did not have a valid photo ID.If this report is accurate, which I'm not convinced of, then it's the state's responsibility to provide photo ID's to those who need them.
Minnesota consistently leads the nation in voter turnout. This is no accident. We have one of the most transparent and accessible voter systems in the country, with same day registration and no photo ID requirement. We also have a reputation for the cleanest elections in the country. We should be rightfully proud -- and the nation should follow our lead.Just because people haven't been convicted of committing voter fraud doesn't mean that people haven't tried gaming Minnesota's voting system. This Powerline post proves that Soros-funded groups have tried:
Minnesota is one of the few states that allows same-day voter registration and has become infamous for its lax same day voter registration requirements. Under Minnesota's registration law, an eligible but previously unregistered individual may register to vote in his precinct by showing proof of residence in the precinct or, in the absence of such proof, having a voter registered in the precinct vouch under oath that he personally knows that the unregistered individual is a resident of the precinct. Although the requirements necessary to establish residence are minimal, they are not non-existent and they are the statutory protection against vote fraud and serial voting.This type of fraud would be prevented by photo ID's.
Among the well-funded and supposedly independent groups supporting John Kerry in the campaign is Americans Coming Together (ACT). ACT has taken notice of Minnesota's special vulnerabilty to vote fraud and organized a sophisticated effort to exploit it in a manner that violates Minnesota law. In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.This email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the "vouching" necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer "personally knows" the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
In addition to its offensive ground game in the state, the Bush campaign here has organized a defensive game plan to identify and prevent election-day fraud, a key component of the Kerry supporters' plan for carrying Minnesota. Organized vote fraud, we'll see it on election day!
Rep. Ellison said that Indiana's law wouldn't "prevent the fraud it was intended to prevent." You'll notice, though, that he didn't say that it wouldn't prevent voter fraud. He simply said that it wouldn't prevent a specific type of voter fraud. Rep. Ellison also said that the Indiana legislation "is designed to prevent a type of fraud that does not exist." Indiana's requiring photo ID would've prevented the type of attempted voter fraud that ACT had planned.
Just because nobody has attempted that type of voter fraud in Indiana shouldn't prevent Indiana's legislature from passing legislation that prevents it from happening. That's essentially saying that legislatures can't pass legislation to prevent voter fraud until voter fraud has happened.
Would Rep. Ellison prevent other states from passing laws that prevent other types of voter fraud even if that type of fraud hasn't been committed in that state? That type of logic would prevent voter fraud legislation from being passed until that type of voter fraud is proven. Until voter fraud laws are on the books, how can a specific type of voter fraud be proven?
It's time to realize that Rep. Ellison's op-ed is intellectually dishonest. For that reason, it's time to marginalize Rep. Ellison.
Posted Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-May-08 11:22 AM
A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of voter fraud. The purpose of the photo ID is to catch and/or prevent that fraud which cannot be caught/prevented without one. Don't tell me it doesn't happen here.
I was a poll observer in 2006. It is worth noting that, by my estimate, 3/4 of the voters voluntarily showed a photo ID. I would suggest to Ellison that the burden of proof is on HIM to prove that no fraud is currently taking place.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-May-08 12:26 PM
AMEN J!!! I couldn't agree more.
Hillary's Campaign Ends Today
If you believed Zogby International's polling , the only conclusion you could draw is that today is the day when Hillary's campaign comes to a screeching halt. Fortunately, I haven't trusted Zogby's polling for quite some time. Here's what ZI is saying about the North Carolina and Indiana primaries:
UTICA, New York-On the strength of good polling numbers on the final day before the primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, Barack Obama of Illinois holds a convincing lead in North Carolina, but the race is simply too close to call in Indiana, the latest Zogby two-day telephone tracking poll shows.ZI used to be a respected polling company. It hasn't been reliable in quite some time. To believe ZI's polling, you'd have to believe that Hillary's support amongst blue collar workers has disappeared in Indiana. I don't believe that for a minute. I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night.
The pair of surveys of the Democratic presidential contests shows Obama with a significant 14-point lead in North Carolina, winning 51% support to Hillary Clinton's 37%. Another 12% said they were either favoring someone else or were as yet undecided. In Indiana, the race is clear as mud, as Obama holds a statistically insignificant lead of two points, winning 45% support to Clinton's 43% support, with 12% either undecided or favoring someone else.
Simply put, ZI's indiana numbers are worthless because they buck multi-state trends.
Drudge is reporting that Hillary has thrown in the proverbial towel in North Carolina:
Hillary Clinton's inner circle now fears a stinging defeat is likely in North Carolina.I don't doubt that Drudge is accurately quoting Hillary campaign officials. I'm skeptical of these quotes because I expect it's part of Hillary's attempt to lower expectations. What better way of lowering expectations than to 'admit' that you're about to get blown out of the water?
"Look, we worked hard and gave it our best shot, but the demographics, well, they are what they are," a top campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT as voting began Tuesday morning.
The campaign now believes a 15 point loss, or more, would not be surprising. Her team will work hard throughout the day to lower all expectations in North Carolina.
The campaign hopes media attention will stay fixated on the competition in Indiana, where 72 delegates are on the line, and Clinton internals show a victory!
It isn't worth paying attention to Hillary's spinmeisters or ZI's polling.
Posted Tuesday, May 6, 2008 11:05 AM
No comments.
